If anybody actually read the text of the executive order, they would immediately see that, unlike Trump & co. claim, it actually does not rename the Gulf of Mexico:

rename as the ‘‘Gulf of America’’ the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico

This "renames" as "Gulf of America" the part of Gulf of Mexico in US territorial waters. (Though how you can "rename" something which never had a specific name is unclear to me.) In other words, it is simply incorrect to label the entire gulf as Gulf of America even according to the text of the executive order. Instead, Gulf of America should be a sub-area in the northern part of the Gulf of Mexico.

Why not simply make the flight FREE*

(* Taxes and fees apply)

Keeping things at a standstill is nowhere near good, but it is still infinitely better than rewarding the aggressor by just handing them everything they would have ever wanted, especially when they are in no position to actually take it themselves in the foreseeable future if things continue like they have been.

Just because the US "demonizes" some countries, as you put it, does not mean that there are no legitimate reasons for opposing the influence of those countries. That is not hatred, that is realism.

Ignoring the bad actors in the world and letting them have their way will not make the world a better place, no matter how much those bad actors think they have "a right" to "be respected" or whatever line they're peddling this time. Yes, that includes both the current Russian and US administrations.

I'm done with this conversation, I have better things to do with the rest of my Sunday.

I see we finally got to the bad faith twisting of your opponent's words, a favorite tactic of tankies.

Why is it their favorite? Because there is nothing they can say to make the fact of Russian imperialism seem more palatable, so they have to instead twist the words describing that imperialism into russophobia.

I'm not talking about the USSR, I'm talking about Russia before the USSR, as a part of the USSR, and after the USSR. Other than that I can't comment on anything you're saying because I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

"US bad" does not mean "Russia good".

"US bad" and "Russia bad" can both be true simultaneously. Didn't Russia want a multipolar world? How about we the sane countries form another pole?

As a European, I don't need US propaganda to know what Russia has done to my people and other European peoples not just in recent history but for centuries. Recent Russian actions are simply a continuation of the same. Their excuses change but their actions don't.

How about one doesn't oppose Nazi B by siding with Nazi A

That's one thick table

For me, the most-used Proton service after email is their calendar. What privacy-friendly calendar alternatives are there that you can recommend?

4Ex

Chinese military is American?

If a country has to live under a dictatorship anyway, I will definitely prefer the dictator in power being toppled even every month, rather than a single dictator being able to consolidate their power and terror.

I used to use Standard Notes for a while (didn't self-host the server) but for various reasons switched over to Joplin, syncing the data between devices with Syncthing.

Of course Russian army is a threat even when it is in Russia. Russian army in Russia has been a direct threat, recently, to Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine.

Unfortunately I need to go now so I cannot keep replying, but I thank you for the enlightening if adversarial discussion. I think we agree on certain principles, but disagree on some fundamental aspects of the situation. While neither side is entirely blameless, our main disagreement seems to stem from the question of who bears the main blame for the situation. You place the main blame on the US and NATO, whereas I place it on Russia. I would like to expand on that a little bit.

I am saying this in completely good faith, to explain where I'm coming from, and to hopefully help you understand my point of view a little better. I hope you take it in good faith as well.

Russia has always chosen to deal with its neighbors through demands, threats, and violence. As Russia has been a large, powerful country for a long time, its smaller neighbors are obviously terrified of Russia throwing around its weight and subjugating and oppressing them. This is not a new thing; it has gone on for centuries in different forms. Every time Russia has had its excuses. It has almost never been Russia's fault; Russia has almost always been "provoked" into it by someone else, or that's what they say. So any reasons they give for their invasions today ring equally hollow.

Russian aggression has consistently driven Russia's neighbors away from Russia to the laps of those strong enough and willing to oppose Russia. For these countries, the strong Russia next door, willing to demand things and to use its military, is a far greater and more direct threat than any faraway power, no matter what evils that faraway power may commit elsewhere. It is Russian actions that have driven its neighbors to NATO and the US. Ukraine is not a US puppet, pushed into the war by US; instead, Ukrainian will to keep oppressive Russian influence away simply happens to align with US interests. Instead of the US using Ukraine, you could almost say that Ukraine is using the US as a tool to fend off Russian influence, which they do not want - and which they did not want even before any hypothetical CIA meddling, since they haven't wanted it for centuries.

If Russia had instead chosen to build friendly cooperative relationships with its neighbors during its history, particularly after the Second World War, it is very unlikely that its neighbors would have felt the need to align themselves with "the West". But Russia has consistently pushed everyone away, and then wonders why nobody likes them. To me, blaming the US for what is going on in Ukraine is a very historically myopic view of the complex situation, a situation dominated by Russia being not so nice to its neighbors throughout history. Sure, the US is not an angel. But for those who want to rid themselves from centuries of Russian oppression, the enemy of their enemy is something like a friend.

Many of the countries consider Russia untrustworthy if not outright hostile, like Russia considers NATO, so following Russian standards all the reason for an invasion would be there.

Lots of countries bordering Russia tolerate Russian military positions across the border without invading.

If the US manufactured this war, why does Putin keep at it? Why does he keep playing into US hands? Isn't continuing this war what the US wants from him?

Then we don't disagree.

Do we also agree that, as a hypothetical, even though both sides do things which are wrong, both sides can also sometimes do things which are good?

And, again as a hypothetical, do we agree that one of these good things is helping a third country which is the victim to one of the wrongs of the other country?

Such as the Soviet Union helping the Vietnamese fight off the Americans.

Or America helping Ukraine fight off Russia.